All Discussions Tagged 'marriage' - Think Atheist2017-09-26T21:01:03Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=marriage&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThe final showdown for same-sex marriage?tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-05-23:1982180:Topic:14606472014-05-23T03:32:37.262ZGallup's Mirrorhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GallupsMirror
<p>The barriers to marriage equality in the United States have been collapsing with astonishing speed. State Courts and District Courts have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage in 10 states since January 2014. The last four occurred <em>in the last three weeks</em> alone.</p>
<p>A total of 18 states have struck down or otherwise challenged bans on same-sex marriage since the Windsor v. United States decision made the federal government recognize same-sex marriage. Many of these lower…</p>
<p>The barriers to marriage equality in the United States have been collapsing with astonishing speed. State Courts and District Courts have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage in 10 states since January 2014. The last four occurred <em>in the last three weeks</em> alone.</p>
<p>A total of 18 states have struck down or otherwise challenged bans on same-sex marriage since the Windsor v. United States decision made the federal government recognize same-sex marriage. Many of these lower court decisions have been stayed (put on hold) pending appeals to higher courts.</p>
<p>This is setting up what will probably be a final showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court. This time, it's going to be winner-take-all. Why? The Court will almost certainly have to rule as to whether or not a state has any legitimate purpose in banning same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>The standard arguments used to justify the bans-- "tradition" and "history" and "health"-- didn't hold up in the lower courts and didn't save DOMA. Will these things impress the Roberts Supreme Court or will marriage equality finally triumph over religiously-motivated bigotry?</p>
<p>My early forecast: BIG win for freedom and equality.</p>
<p>----------------------</p>
<p><strong>States that have challenged or ended bans on same-sex marriage...</strong></p>
<p><strong>Since Windsor v. U.S. ended DOMA:</strong></p>
<p>DELAWARE, RHODE ISLAND, MINNESOTA, NEW JERSEY, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, NEW MEXICO, UTAH</p>
<p><strong>Since January 2014:</strong></p>
<p>OKLAHOMA (January 14) U.S. District Court Ruling<br/> KENTUCKY (February 12) U.S. District Court Ruling<br/> VIRGINIA (February 13) U.S. District Court Ruling<br/> TEXAS (February 26) Federal Judge Orlando Garcia ruling<br/> MICHIGAN (March) U.S. District Court Ruling <br/> OHIO (April 14) U.S. District Court Ruling <br/> ARKANSAS (May 9) Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza (stayed by Arkansas Supreme Court)<br/> IDAHO (May 9) U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Wagahoff ruling<br/> OREGON (This week) U.S. District Court ruling <br/> PENNSYLVANIA (This week) U.S. District Court ruling</p>
<p>(<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/21/justice/same-sex-marriage-state-breakdown/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>-------------------</p>
<p><strong>Update</strong>: There is now just ONE state-- North Dakota-- out of the 31 states with bans on same-sex marriage that is not facing a legal challenge that is (or will likely end up) in federal court. (<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/legal-fights-gay-marriage-spread-us-23821210" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Update (May 25, 2014)</strong>: The ban on same-sex marriage in North Dakota is being challenged! It'll take four to six weeks for the suit to be filed. (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/25/north-dakota-gay-marriage-ban-to-face-legal-challenge/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>By July it'll be unanimous. Every US state that has outlawed marriage equality will have been hauled into court to explain the legitimate purpose for doing so. Having none, the bans are overturned, stayed, and go before a US Court of Appeals. One of these cases from 31 states is bound to end up in front of the Supreme Court sooner or later.</p> Marriage Equality comes to New Mexico and now Utahtag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-21:1982180:Topic:14179542013-12-21T02:57:09.739ZGallup's Mirrorhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GallupsMirror
<p>Yesterday, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/new-mexicos-highest-court-rules-gay-marriage-legal" target="_blank">New Mexico</a> became the 17th US state to legalize same-sex marriage when the state supreme court ruled it was unconstitutional to deny a marriage licence to gay and lesbian couples. Today, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/20/utah-same-sex-marriage-ban-struck-down-unconstitutional" target="_blank">Utah</a> became the 18th US state to legalize…</p>
<p>Yesterday, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/new-mexicos-highest-court-rules-gay-marriage-legal" target="_blank">New Mexico</a> became the 17th US state to legalize same-sex marriage when the state supreme court ruled it was unconstitutional to deny a marriage licence to gay and lesbian couples. Today, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/20/utah-same-sex-marriage-ban-struck-down-unconstitutional" target="_blank">Utah</a> became the 18th US state to legalize marriage equality when a federal judge ruled the state ban violated gay and lesbian couples' 14th amendment right to due process and equal protection.</p>
<p>The barriers continue to fall. I wonder how many state bans on same-sex marriage, either by <a href="http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857" target="_blank">constitutional amendment or state law</a>, are going to survive legal challenges based on the 14th amendment.</p> Same-sex wedding cakes displease Godtag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-08:1982180:Topic:14138592013-12-08T02:58:40.002ZGallup's Mirrorhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GallupsMirror
<p>"Administrative law judge <a href="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf">Robert N. Spence found Friday</a> that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colo. violated the law when he turned away David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 33, from his shop last year. In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law…</p>
<p>"Administrative law judge <a href="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf">Robert N. Spence found Friday</a> that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colo. violated the law when he turned away David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 33, from his shop last year. In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. [...]</p>
<p>"According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs. Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings.</p>
<p>"The judge's decision states in its Finding of Facts that Phillips believes creating same-sex wedding cakes would be "displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible. In concluding that Masterpiece Cakeshop acted unlawfully, <a href="http://aclu-co.org/sites/default/files/Probable%20Cause%20Determination%20%282%29.pdf" target="external">a CCRC investigation also showed evidence</a> that Phillips was willing to bake a cake for the "marriage" of a pair of dogs, but not for two women. [...]</p>
<p>"Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge's decision was "reprehensible" and "antithetical to everything America stands for. He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," Martin said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. [...] Philips is currently considering an appeal of the judge's order."<br/> (<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=21136505" target="_blank">source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">------------</p>
<p>So, a cake for hetero dog marriage is no problem. But a cake for homosexual human marriage is an outrage before God and America; one that is holding poor Philip hostage for a paycheck.</p>
<p>Well, the solution is simple and obvious. Now that marriage equality has made the cake business so clearly against Philip's religion, it's time to either switch religions or get out of the cake business.</p> Long story short: I'm getting marriedtag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-10-07:1982180:Topic:13859822013-10-07T03:47:09.587ZCesar Deicidehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/CesarRodriguez
<p>Short story serialized:</p>
<p>As some of you know, i'm in a relationship with a really nice girl. After 3 years of joy and sorrow, i decided to propose to her which she accepted.</p>
<p>I've mentioned some of our struggle regarding religion, which, luckily, hasn't being an issue and apparently won't be any time soon.</p>
<p>Thank you all for your support and there will be photos when the time comes.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Edit: Thank you for all that commented, i appreciate it.</p>
<p>Short story serialized:</p>
<p>As some of you know, i'm in a relationship with a really nice girl. After 3 years of joy and sorrow, i decided to propose to her which she accepted.</p>
<p>I've mentioned some of our struggle regarding religion, which, luckily, hasn't being an issue and apparently won't be any time soon.</p>
<p>Thank you all for your support and there will be photos when the time comes.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Edit: Thank you for all that commented, i appreciate it.</p> Backbone Award Winner: PA. County Clerk D. Bruce Hanestag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-09-12:1982180:Topic:13754142013-09-12T18:39:23.280ZGallup's Mirrorhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GallupsMirror
<p><strong>The story:</strong></p>
<p>Pennsylvania Judge Dan Pellegrini stopped Philadelphia county clerk D. Bruce Hanes from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Hanes has issued 174 such licenses despite a state law that restricts marriage to one man and one woman, citing the United States Constitution, the US Supreme Court's decision to throw out the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and a statement by Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane that the state's same-sex marriage…</p>
<p><strong>The story:</strong></p>
<p>Pennsylvania Judge Dan Pellegrini stopped Philadelphia county clerk D. Bruce Hanes from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Hanes has issued 174 such licenses despite a state law that restricts marriage to one man and one woman, citing the United States Constitution, the US Supreme Court's decision to throw out the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and a statement by Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane that the state's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional.</p>
<p>Judge Pellegrini said Hanes did not have the power to decide whether Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban violates the state constitution. It was not immediately clear what Hane's order will mean to those who have already received a marriage license.</p>
<p>The ACLU of Pennsylvania in a separate action is suing in federal court to put a stop to Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban. A similar scenario is playing out in New Mexico, where a county clerk concluded the law did not prevent him from issuing same-sex licenses, and about a half-dozen others in that state have followed suit. (<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/12/pa-same-sex-marriage-license/2804899/" target="_blank">Full story</a>)</p>
<p><strong>My take:</strong></p>
<p>Of course Hanes knows a county clerk doesn't have the power to decide the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Hanes also knows he has the power to issue marriage licenses to gay couples-- ordinary people who have suffered the injury and indignity of being defined by law as second class citizens-- which he does as an act of conscience, solidarity, and protest. Simply put: Hanes has had enough.</p>
<p>For an iconoclast willing to take a stand, risk unknown consequences, and turn his limited power against overwhelming authority in a likely futile but deeply meaningful attempt to right a terrible wrong:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>The Backbone Award: D. Bruce Hanes</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><a target="_blank" href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/24/article-0-1AF9018F000005DC-681_634x798.jpg"><img class="align-center" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/24/article-0-1AF9018F000005DC-681_634x798.jpg" width="317" height="399"/></a></strong></p>
<p></p> Same Sex Marriage (& The Argument from Definition)tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-08-28:1982180:Topic:13693112013-08-28T20:40:41.391ZNerdy Keithhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/keith
<p><a href="http://uwbwritingcenter.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/oed.jpg" target="_blank"><img class="align-center" src="http://uwbwritingcenter.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/oed.jpg"></img></a></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>For those who debate the issue of same sex marriage, will know that when one is not talking about naturalism, nor religious beliefs opposing homosexuality (or rather the "act" of honosexuality). Opponents of same sex marriage will use the argument of definition.</span><br></br><br></br><span>But wait, by definition; marriage is also between two persons of the same gender. At…</span></p>
<p><a href="http://uwbwritingcenter.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/oed.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://uwbwritingcenter.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/oed.jpg" class="align-center"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>For those who debate the issue of same sex marriage, will know that when one is not talking about naturalism, nor religious beliefs opposing homosexuality (or rather the "act" of honosexuality). Opponents of same sex marriage will use the argument of definition.</span><br/><br/><span>But wait, by definition; marriage is also between two persons of the same gender. At least according to the Oxford English Dictionary it is. Previously it was just their free online dictionary available on their website that defined marriage to include same sex unions and marriages as well as the more traditional variations. Now Oxford have extended this to their printed dictionaries. The article discussing this can be read <a href="http://www.edgeonthenet.com/index.php?ch=news&amp;sc=&amp;sc2=news&amp;sc3=&amp;id=148703" target="_blank">here</a></span></p>
<p>For those wondering what exactly this definition entails:</p>
<blockquote><p><span>"(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex."</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><br/><span>Do you think this will assist in promoting human equality? I can only hope so. And a better question to ask might be will this end the argument from definition as we know it? I think its safe to say that only time will tell</span></p> Couples who share household chores are more likely to break up.tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-04:1982180:Topic:13473472013-07-04T14:54:12.874ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>If you want to increase the chance you and your partner will break up, help him/her with the dishes, carry out the trash, mow the lawn on alternating weeks.</p>
<p>Yes...</p>
<p><em>Divorce rates are far higher among “modern” couples who share the housework than in those where the woman does the lion’s share of the chores, a Norwegian study has found.</em></p>
<p><em>In what appears to be a slap in the face for gender equality, the report found the divorce rate among couples who shared…</em></p>
<p>If you want to increase the chance you and your partner will break up, help him/her with the dishes, carry out the trash, mow the lawn on alternating weeks.</p>
<p>Yes...</p>
<p><em>Divorce rates are far higher among “modern” couples who share the housework than in those where the woman does the lion’s share of the chores, a Norwegian study has found.</em></p>
<p><em>In what appears to be a slap in the face for gender equality, the report found the divorce rate among couples who shared housework equally was around 50 per cent higher than among those where the woman did most of the work.</em></p>
<p><em>“What we’ve seen is that sharing equal responsibility for work in the home doesn’t necessarily contribute to contentment,” said Thomas Hansen, co-author of the study entitled “Equality in the Home”.</em></p>
<p><em>The lack of correlation between equality at home and quality of life was surprising, the researcher said.</em></p>
<p><em>“One would think that break-ups would occur more often in families with less equality at home, but our statistics show the opposite,” he said.</em></p>
<p><em>The figures clearly show that “the more a man does in the home, the higher the divorce rate,” he went on. </em>(<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9572187/Couples-who-share-the-housework-are-more-likely-to-divorce-study-finds.html" target="_blank">source</a>)</p>
<p>The conclusion wasn't that sharing duties around the home damages the marriage, but that "modern" couples who divide up the work also have different attitudes toward and a lower commitment to marriage than more traditional couples.</p>
<p>In the past there were studies showing that couples that live together before marriage—believing that doing so would help them better decide whether to tie the knot—actually divorced in considerably higher numbers than those who lived apart before marriage. The explanation then was similar: such couples are less committed to marriage to start with and, thus, are more likely to bail when it doesn't meet their perceived needs as well as they thought.</p>
<p>Are freethinkers bad bets if you want a marriage to last? What do YOU think?</p> Marriagetag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-03-16:1982180:Topic:12764702013-03-16T23:46:39.992ZkOrsanhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/kayaorsan
<p><span class="font-size-6"><strong><font color="#FF3333"><em>Disclaimer</em></font></strong></span><br></br> I'm getting tired of having to spoonfeed this to some of you people individually. As it turns out though, thankfully, I can edit the OP so at least read this. I am not arguing against love, relationships or commitment, or anything the like. <strong>Quite the opposite</strong>, I'm saying they're good enough on their own without the need for the legal paperwork, money-waste and label of…</p>
<p><span class="font-size-6"><strong><font color="#FF3333"><em>Disclaimer</em></font></strong></span><br/> I'm getting tired of having to spoonfeed this to some of you people individually. As it turns out though, thankfully, I can edit the OP so at least read this. I am not arguing against love, relationships or commitment, or anything the like. <strong>Quite the opposite</strong>, I'm saying they're good enough on their own without the need for the legal paperwork, money-waste and label of marriage. I welcome any opinion whether I like it or not, but not when you're missing all of the actual points like a little boy splashing the rim and substitute your own. No one's forcing you to read the whole thread, but at least read the damn OP of the thread next time or don't bother. It's getting frustrating having to read through your condescending tones just to find out you just didn't pay attention.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;">----------------------------------------------------------------</span></p>
<p></p>
<p>Hey. I'm not sure if I made a thread before but I'd like to put some of my thoughts on marriage here and see what all of you guys think. I see many of you as much smarter than me, and I think I can learn some. This got a little long, and I don't know if I should post it as a blog instead, but since my objective is to get some sort of exchange/discussion going a thread is more fitting. This is my opinion only. I'm not going to talk about gay-marriage or things like that, we all already know enough about that. I want to talk about marriage itself.</p>
<p>My stance on marriage is not that everybody should be allowed to have one, including gays. My stance is that nobody should get married, including straight people. And I'm often confused as to why atheists, secular intelligent people, would want to engage in this antiquated, forcefully contrived and often religious social construct.</p>
<p>I've said this in one form or another before. People like to think about marriage as this magical bond between two people in love, but for the bigger part of its history marriage wasn't about love at all. We know that in the past ages marriage was only used as a form of sales-contract, a political relationship building tool between two parties, and a way for the rulers to keep tabs on their subjects, while making sure they don't run amok fucking and raping each other aimlessly. It was an easy social structure to introduce into a primitive society that would otherwise kill each other over women to rape (which they did, and still do regardless). As a religious construct, it has been solely used for the above mentioned purposes, plus turn women into property. We need only look at some religious men and their harem of wives, to see that in that marriage women have become nothing more than a commodity. In marriage, even today, women are often nothing more than merchandise. Why do you think religious men always emphasize the importance of staying pure and staying away from sex until marriage? Because some men have very small penises. And some men with small penises are willing to pay high prices for a certain commodity: virginity. They want sex with virgins, because the small-dicked man knows the virgin doesn't know any better, so he has a confidence boost. Same reason they marry old geezers to little children, under the ruse of "our prophet did it." It's all about keeping the business running. Tell girls not to fuck. Slut-shame them should they dare to have sex outside of marriage. Call them whores, sluts, whatever. Put peer-pressure on them. Because if they do, the market will run dry.</p>
<p>There are a some popular arguments for/about marriage that I'd like to take on.</p>
<blockquote><ul>
<li><span>It's a public declaration of loyalty. / It shows commitment.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a common error. Marriage doesn't make someone any more loyal then s/he would've been anyway, and if it does it's either because of peer-pressure (look up countries with the lowest divorce rates) or simple disingenuity. If you are in a relationship (which is not open), then you should be able to stay loyal and make it clear you're committed all by yourself, without a ring on your finger to vouch for you. Saying marriage ads to the commitment and shows loyalty is really no different than, for example, saying the bible gives us strength and hope. We should be able to have those things by ourselves, and those who cling to it show only a lack of those traits in themselves; just as someone who can not be <em>as loyal</em> without marriage shows a lack of confidence in their loyalty to begin with.</p>
<p>Now there also many people who say that they want a marriage to make sure their partner is committed. To me, a person who says they cannot expect loyalty and commitment unless their partner agrees to marry them is a person who displays a severe lack of trust, confidence and faith in their partner. A crucial flaw which wouldn't work out too well for a relationship to begin with.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm quoting the next point <a href="http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/lay-down-your-guns?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A1276367" target="_blank">from a post</a> from another member, MikeLong, here. I originally wanted to answer you in that thread, but the lack of a reply button was getting on my nerves, sorry.</p>
<blockquote><ul>
<li><span>If shit goes south, marriage makes us try harder to preserve the relationship,</span> <span>rather than simply cast it aside as just another failed relationship.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Again, I think this should go without having to be married. If the relationship is worth it you should put all effort in, but not because you think "Oh well, we're married now. And it's kinda too much work to get divorced anyway." If marriage is your only incentive to keep a relationship alive, it's not a relationship of love as it is a cold iron chain locking you together.</p>
<p>More importantly though, just because a relationship is over doesn't mean it's <em>failed</em>. We fall in love, and then often we get jaded, and it's over. But that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile, that it was a waste of time, or that it failed. We experience something nice, and then it's time to move on. What marriage does is hold you trapped, after you've had enough. And I believe that the idea of an ended relationship being a "failed" relationship is something, more often than not, pushed into our culture by clergy. They are mostly the ones we hear bitching about divorce rates in secular countries and how it's somehow directly related to the moral decline in that country. That's bullshit. The only thing a divorce means is that two people no longer want to be together. What does the reason matter? Clergy often pretend like it's because people turn gay and the men divorce their wives because they want to go to a gay bar and have wild gay sex out of wedlock (ironically the solution would be to allow same-sex marriage, but I digress). But even if it were so, so what? How would it make those two people any more happy if they were continuously trapped in a marriage? Even when, at first, only one of the two partners wants a divorce, to me it would be much more horrible to force the other person to stay married. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't want me anymore. Platonic love doesn't end well for either party.</p>
<p>So what I'm rambling on about it that ending a relationship is not always a bad thing. Call me a cynic, but I believe that it's a good time even <em>most of the time</em>. Something sucks, you work at it. But at some point you have to stop and accept that it might just not be worth it to try and pick up all the pieces off of the floor so you can glue them together and hope it sticks for just a little while longer. At some point you just have to leave the pieces lie and move the fuck on.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><ul>
<li>marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Obviously, this is an argument that comes from the theist camp. Now I'm not going to argue about how retarded it is to suggest that gays have any less of a right to a marriage, we already know that, but instead tell you why I think religion loves pairing different genders so much. It's because man + woman = baby. Baby = another unit in the army. That's it. Nothing profound to it. Sacred bond my ass. It's about growing numbers like a virus. Rulers in all ages understood that if you want to build a powerful nation, what you need are people. Many many people. As many as possible. Living conditions, quality of life - doesn't matter. If he can hold a weapon and become cannon-fodder he's good enough. Same reason religion values men more than women. They're physically stronger. Same reason clergy are against abortion, it kills potential units and dwindles their numbers. <span style="color: #333333;">(It also kills off all the pussy in the age range they like.)</span></p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><ul>
<li>We do it for the civil / legal / financial rights.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>I actually don't know enough about this to be able to fairly comment, so I'd love some input. Obviously I still don't like it. I know people who have been together for years but have no intentions of getting married for any benefits, my own sister included, and they seem to lead happy lives. But are the benefits worth compromising your integrity?Is there no other way to achieve those rights? Would it be at all possible for us to change this? I'm aware that gays fight for marriage because they want the rights that come with it. Now I remember Strega saying in a different thread that if they made some other civil construct which would allow her, as a gay person, to have all the benefits of a usual marriage provides, she'd do it right away. Even if it wasn't called a marriage. Do you agree with this, or do you think that, if anything, both straight people and gays should get the exact same thing? In which case it cannot be a religious union, because all major religions are homophobic. And so...I'm tired.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That's it for now. I actually have much more to say, but I kinda already wrote more than usual and I'm getting bored and I'm sure I've bored most of you by now too. I might add some later. Cut me some slack!</p> Thoughts on marriagetag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-01-02:1982180:Topic:12427032013-01-02T23:59:44.521ZMelvinotishttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Melvinotis
<p>I'm in a long term relationship with my girlfriend, we have a house together, and I help raise her two teenage girls. I was married before (Unitarian) but got divorced and I am just not interested in a church wedding or a church concept of marriage. The government concept of marriage is not appealing either. </p>
<p>We are committed to each other, until death as the saying goes. I have seen so many good relationships get wrecked by marriage though, that frankly, I'm gun shy. She is an…</p>
<p>I'm in a long term relationship with my girlfriend, we have a house together, and I help raise her two teenage girls. I was married before (Unitarian) but got divorced and I am just not interested in a church wedding or a church concept of marriage. The government concept of marriage is not appealing either. </p>
<p>We are committed to each other, until death as the saying goes. I have seen so many good relationships get wrecked by marriage though, that frankly, I'm gun shy. She is an atheist, too (although has some superstitions she keeps up with) and she has an ex as well. </p>
<p>We live a good healthy, happy life together. We love each other deeply, her kids are part of my family in my heart and in reality as well. </p>
<p>I guess I would like to get some of your thoughts on marriage, or what being a married atheist means.</p>
<p>Sometimes it feels like the only reason I am thinking about this stuff is that I am tired of being in my 40's with a life mate I call a girlfriend. And life insurance, wills and all the other issues that many gay couples have to deal with.</p>
<p>P.S. I am gun shy about marriage, not her. She is awesome and will be with me as long as we live, with or without marriage. </p> Counter Amendment Strategy Against "Protection of Marriage Amendment" and DOMA... etc...tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-26:1982180:Topic:11985642012-10-26T14:15:13.001ZSkycomet the Fallen Angelhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Skycomet
<p>The United States may not be ready for the idea I am about to propose, but I am coming to believe that the only way to stop "protection of marriage" religious conservatives may be to counter their attempts to pass a "Protection of Marriage Amendment" with a counter amendment to establish the right for GLBTQ individuals to marry.</p>
<p>The likelihood that Americans will pass such an amendment seems to be slim right now, but I think it is something to keep in mind for sometime in the…</p>
<p>The United States may not be ready for the idea I am about to propose, but I am coming to believe that the only way to stop "protection of marriage" religious conservatives may be to counter their attempts to pass a "Protection of Marriage Amendment" with a counter amendment to establish the right for GLBTQ individuals to marry.</p>
<p>The likelihood that Americans will pass such an amendment seems to be slim right now, but I think it is something to keep in mind for sometime in the future.</p>
<p>I came up with a preliminary phrasing like this... but as I have no legal training... any advice or changes to better the wording is welcomed:</p>
<p></p>
<p>RIGHT TO MARRY AMENDMENT</p>
<p>The right of residents and citizens of the United States to legally marry and gain all of the recognition, rights and privileges thereof shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state because of gender identity, sexual orientation, and/ or the genders of the marriage partners. The United States and all states shall legally recognize the marriages between a man and a woman, a man and a man, and a woman and a woman.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Any thoughts? Comments? Criticisms? Advice?</p>